Papers › Can Large Language Models be Good Path Planners? A Benchmark and Investigation on...

Can Large Language Models be Good Path Planners? A Benchmark and Investigation on Spatial-temporal Reasoning

5 Oct 2023arXiv:2310.03249archive 2025-07-28

Mohamed Aghzal, Erion Plaku, Ziyu Yao

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across a wide spectrum of tasks; however, they still face limitations in scenarios that demand long-term planning and spatial reasoning. To facilitate this line of research, in this work, we propose a new benchmark, termed Path Planning from Natural Language (PPNL). Our benchmark evaluates LLMs' spatial-temporal reasoning by formulating ''path planning'' tasks that require an LLM to navigate to target locations while avoiding obstacles and adhering to constraints. Leveraging this benchmark, we systematically investigate LLMs including GPT-4 via different few-shot prompting methodologies as well as BART and T5 of various sizes via fine-tuning. Our experimental results show the promise of few-shot GPT-4 in spatial reasoning, when it is prompted to reason and act interleavedly, although it still fails to perform long-term temporal reasoning. In contrast, while fine-tuned LLMs achieved impressive results on in-distribution reasoning tasks, they struggled to generalize to larger environments or environments with more obstacles.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

28 samples harvested; 28 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 28 of the 28 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from mohamedaghzal/llms-as-path-planners. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections